Friday, October 14, 2011

Tudor, Stuart, Hanover, Windsor, Smith, Jones, Khan and Singh

His Grace has quite a lot of time for Simon Heffer, and a point has been raised over at RightMinds which merits a little scrutiny:

Suppose the Prince of Wales’s elder child had been a girl. Suppose she had married the male equivalent of Kate Middleton... This would mean that for several generations the Royal Family would take its name and pedigree from a pair of party planners. Many of us are not snobs and wouldn’t mind. Many others are snobs and would (look at the viewing figures for Downton Abbey if you doubt me, and ask whether a drama about Edwardian tradesmen would be quite so riveting to the public). Some people are republicans and find it hard to make way against the tide of opinion that likes a royal family rooted in ancient lineage. One re-based in the middle class wouldn’t last ten minutes.

Some may ask ‘What’s in a name?’. The answer is, of course, quite a lot. While a rose by any other name would certainly smell as sweet, ultimately, being a Montague or a Capulet heralds an inescapable fate. Queen Victoria ceased being a Hanover and took the name of her husband to establish the Royal Dynasty of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This was considered altogether too German and unacceptably foreign while their cousins were bombing our boys to kingdom come, so the name was changed in 1917 to Windsor. On marrying Prince Philip, the present Queen retained that name, though her children have the theoretical option of Mountbatten-Windsor. Had she married a Muslim, the picture above gives an illustration of how she and her consort may now appear: one may be left in no doubt as to who would have been in charge of the affairs of state, and in what faith their children would have been brought up.

Simon Heffer’s speculation is interesting insofar as the proposal to abolish primogeniture could feasibly lead to the Royal dynasty of Smith or Jones. But class aside, since Mr Cameron is concerned with matters of equality, there would be absolutely no reason why Prince William’s eldest first-born daughter could not marry a certain Mohammed Khan and establish a new Islamic dynasty, or a Sikh one, or a Hindu one... In fact, if the Royal Family came under the sort of pressure to make their House as inclusive as David Cameron is trying to make the Conservative Party – ‘representative of the nation’ – royal princes and princesses could feel obliged not only to take partners of other faiths, but to convert in the process, and sport turbans and hijabs as an outer manifestation of that inclusivity.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Except that the equality precept could not also apply to the Monarch, who must remain a member of the Church of England. Contrary to popular belief (and the Prime Minister’s apparent understanding), the Monarch is not free to be any religion or marry into any religion except the Roman Catholic one. For the Act of Settlement requires the Monarch and his or her consort to be ‘in communion with’ the Church of England. While His Grace could write more than a few pages on the meaning of ‘koinonia’ in this context, it must be noted that it is not only Roman Catholics who are prohibited by their own Magisterium from taking bread and wine in Anglican churches: Jews and Muslims would also find this unacceptable, and so adherents to many other faiths bar themselves from being ‘in communion with’ the State Church.

The Act of Settlement was forged during an era of intolerable foreign interference in the governance of England. Like Magna Carta, it is a foundational treaty between the Monarch and his/her subjects which defines our liberties and asserts our sovereign independence from all foreign princes and potentates. And its provisions are ‘for ever’: our forebears made sure it was watertight. If, indeed, Parliament were once again to permit the Monarch to be or to marry a Roman Catholic, they would find a considerable hurdle in the clause which states: 'in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance'. The Prime Minister appears to be oblivious to the fact that the Oath of Allegiance is contingent upon the Act of Settlement, not to mention the Act of Union.

An amendment which admits Roman Catholics into the Royal fold effectively absolves all citizens of their allegiance, thereby opening the way for republican terrorists like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to take their seats in Parliament.

According to The Telegraph, the Church of England has already spoken out to oppose any amendment. We read:

...the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican.

...Mr Clegg was initially attracted to the idea of repealing the Act but is said to have been persuaded that the difficulties raised by the Anglican Church were insurmountable.

...A spokesman for the Anglican Church said that although the Act of Succession appeared “anomalous” in the modern world, while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere.

He went on: “The prohibition on those in the line of succession marrying Roman Catholics derives from an earlier age and inevitably looks anomalous, not least when there is no prohibition on marriage to those of other faiths or none. But if the prohibition were removed the difficulty would still remain that establishment requires the monarch to join in communion with the Church of England as its Supreme Governor and that is not something that a Roman Catholic would be able to do consistently with the current rules of that church.”

And His Grace has two final questions:

If the Prime Minister’s primary concerns are to eradicate historical anomaly and ensure greater equality, why is he not proposing to abolish the Church of England, which is a far greater historical anomaly? And, far more importantly, will this Blairite ‘modernisation’ of the Constitution permit the Heir to Throne to marry someone of the same sex? Surely, if one is amending the Act of Settlement 1701 today in order to address the remote possibility 30 years from now of a yet unborn heir to the Throne wanting to marry a Roman Catholic, it would be rather remiss of the Government not to amend the Royal Marriages Act 1772 in order to provide for ‘gay marriage’ within the future Royal House of Khan or Fayad. Indeed, such an omission would be offensive – if not bigoted – to approximately the same number who protest against the ‘anti-Catholic’ provisions in the Act of Settlement.

151 Comments:

"If the Prime Minister’s primary concerns are to eradicate historical anomaly and ensure greater equality, why is he not proposing to abolish the Church of England, which is a far greater historical anomaly?"

To drive to the house in a large lorry with a iron boulder hanging from a chain would be much too obvious. All you merely need do is interfer with the foundation props and watch the edifice come tumbling down, in a great puff of incompetence and gross stupidity.

Interesting last point, that. As far as I know, there's nothing in law or convention that would prevent an heir to the throne from taking a Roman Catholic civil partner, since such possibilities weren't even considered when the Act of Settlement was introduced. But I can imagine an enterprising if vexatious litigant going to court to establish whether or not there was sufficient distinction between marriage and civil partnership to permit this. So, as things stand, it could be argued that the civil partnerships are not equivalent to marriage precisely because they do not contain this discrimination againt Catholic royal partners: in which case, the lack of discrimination is in itself a form of discrimination. The replacement of CPs by full recognition of gay marriage would presumably bring royal couplings within its scope.

A fascinating topic. Sadly, Prince Harry seems to be resolutely heterosexual in his tastes, so we'll have to wait another generation at least to find out.

Thought the photo had captured The Fake Sheikh aka Mazher Mahmood trying to see if Her Majesty would be prepared to sell Buckingham Palace and other baubles of British Heritage, so they could be replanted in Saudi Arabia to go with his rolls royces, racing horses etc, after the Act Of Settlement is declared null and void? (Should she haggle over leaving the fixtures and fittings?)Decisions, Decisions?

I don't see that it would be necessary or, indeed, desirable, to abolish the Church of England in order to get rid of the historical anomalies which certainly exist at present.

Such a move would be repugnant to a secular liberal like myself.

Would not disestablishment be an option, and a sensible one at that?

As regards the monarchy itself, I have a somewhat radical proposal, which I'd like to open to discussion.

I can see the value of having a non executive head of state - it would prevent people like Bliar taking the role, and I can see the advantage to tourism of all the pomp and ceremony.

So why not retain the Crown as head of state, and the Royal Seal to pass bills into law>

Just not have anyone wearing the Crown.

A good choice to be the carrier of the Crown, at the opening of parliament, and to use the Seal to adopt bills, would, I propose, be the current speaker of the House of Commons.

The financial savings would be substantial, the advantages of not having a pedlar of woo as head of state not inconsiderable, but many if not all the advantages of retaining the Crown as Head of State would be retained.

Not a common view, I know, but from small acorns sometimes grow mighty oaks.

"So why not retain the Crown as head of state, and the Royal Seal to pass bills into law> Why, We could even pray to them and worship their majesty at being such a clever objects!

Just not have anyone wearing the Crown. Why not just have a £50 note perched on a red cushion on a Throne instead?

A good choice to be the carrier of the Crown, at the opening of parliament, and to use the Seal to adopt bills, would, I propose, be the current speaker of the House of Commons." Why not just have it transported on a 'Generation Game like' conveyor belt that stops at the Chair of the Speaker? If he carries it, should it be held above his head, at chest height, in front or behind so as to represent its purpose to the people, neither held more to left or right to signify balance in all things, for all?"Not a common view, I know, but from small acorns sometimes grow mighty oaks." From little acorns of nonsense some mighty pillars of Political Gibberish are grown.

Sir, you are the bringer of such mirth that Ernst nominates you as First Lord of Nonsense, here and forthwith!

Ernst 'Good game, Good game or The scores on both Parliament doors is' Blofeld

It's one thing to rely on the hereditary principle to determine who should be our Head of State, but to narrow down its application by restricting it to male offspring and those with the same social background and religion is asking for trouble. The next thing you know will happen is that we have a head of state who talks to plants and writes letters on arcane subjects to his ministers in green ink.

I would have thought that a few party planning genes in the royal family would be a good thing, given that quite a lot of people see births/marriages/anniversaries of the Royal family as a good excuse for a party.

Why do we have to change everything? Look at the mess in the Health Service, especially so called nursing care, or the Church of England and her Welsh neighbour, Education, or lack of it according to employers, the Rail Network... The list is endless.Leave it Mr Cameron.

David Cameron seems to have picked up Tony Blair's half-baked theories from where they were left off.

I'd suggest he leaves well alone. He's got far too much to think about as it is. We could all be in national financial ruin next week.

As a PS I see you report that an Anglican spokesman says "while the Church of England remained the established religion". The C of E isn't a religion, it's an ecclesial body of Christians with widely varying understanding of the Faith.

The law prohibits Roman Catholics from sitting on either throne. It doesn't say much about papal Anglicans. The present queen may be low church, but her sister was "quite high". Prince Charles is not offended by bells and smells, I hear.

As a follow up to above, the Queen herself did not attend Charles' civil marriage ceremony because of her position as Supreme Govenor of the Church of England. Speaks volumes. Strangely, she did attend the Church Blessing of the relationship. Contradictions abound!

Isn't it time to simply accept the constitutional Monarchy can no longer be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

The Monarch has no effective powers -secular or temporal.

Constitutional convention prevents her from exercising any legislative oversight. Her one role, not carried out to my knowledge in modern times, is to ask a member of Parliament to form a government in circumstances where the House itself cannot decide. In reality she would probably dissolve Parliament.

Would the world as we know it really end if the Anglican Church was disestablished? The appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even in her control being a 'political' recommendation from the Prime Minister.

The Church is for all practical purposes disestablished. Lets move on.

"Can I ask if Prince Charles, who has married a divorcee and is therefore an adulterer in the eyes of the Church, "in communion" with the Church of England?"

I think you will find that some churches are more able to move with the times than others. The Quakers were even able to accept gay marriage before the British state. See it as one of those paradoxes sent by God to test believers - or just as evidence that Man created God in his image rather than vice versa if you are of a more cynical disposition.

Do have a bit more faith in the flunkies who attend the royals and who are, as members of the royal family have themselves pointed out, more ‘royal’ than the royals. Such outlandish possibilities are very unlikely to occur, lest the offending royals remains be found in the tower, beneath a staircase, several hundred years from now…

Would the world as we know it really end if the Anglican Church was disestablished?

The World would go on just fine, but the CoE would disintegrate. From the Dis-established Church of England Sketch.

It's passed on! This church is no more! He has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life. It rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the foundation it'd be pushing up the daisies! It's metabolic processes are now history! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket. It's shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CHURCH!!

So if you are institutionally devoted to the CoE, then you will consider dis-establishment a very bad idea.

I think you will find that some churches are more able to move with the times than others

Is moving with the times a virtue or a vice in Christianity? Of course, the secularist just wants a Church to endorse what he already thinks. That's why "moving with the times" is set up as such a good thing by them, it's an example of remaking God in Modern Man's image.

People should, of course, be free to pray to whoever or whatever they wish, or not, as the case should be.

I don't think, myself, that a 50 quid note would carry quite as much gravitas as the Royal Crown. Nor the Gen Game conveyor belt.

No, I think having a man (or, let us not be sexist about it, a woman) dressed in funny archaic dress, carrying the Crown solemnly on a red velvet cushion has exactly the degree of pomp, ceremony, tradition and mild eccentricity that is the essence of Englishness.

It may take some time for this modest proposal to sink into the political culture of the country, but you will no doubt have noticed that it more than adequately addresses His Grace's concerns about the succession.

"Queen Victoria ceased being a Hanover and took the name of her husband to establish the Royal Dynasty of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This was considered altogether too German and unacceptably foreign while their cousins were bombing our boys to kingdom come, so the name was changed in 1917 to Windsor."

One of my all time favourite jokes: when the Kaiser heard of this, he commented that he had to attend a performance of the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

"Of course, the secularist just wants a Church to endorse what he already thinks."

No - we most definitely don't - and given the massive diversity of views among the Churches it usually possible to find one that will endorse any viewpoint.

As for moving with the times - I'd rather judge each case on the relevant facts and merits. But since you ask I do think certain Churches couls have been a little bit quicker in acknowledging evolution, that the earth revolved around the sun, slavery wasn't a good thing, wives were not their husband's property etc.etc.

Exactly, Christians who believe God has completed his self-revelation in Jesus should be very unhappy about being complimented on moving with the times. The most that can happen is that the times help them to see some aspect of Jesus' teaching more clearly - or else that something which had previously been accepted, is not in fact part of the revelation.

since you ask I do think certain Churches couls have been a little bit quicker in acknowledging evolution, that the earth revolved around the sun, slavery wasn't a good thing, wives were not their husband's property etc.etc

All good cases in point. The errors indicated here did not come from Jesus, but from the culture in which the Church lived. Similarly, it is a good thing the Church did not "move with the times" in the days when so many atheists thought Communism was some kind of necessary law of history. "The times" are deeply ambiguous. Beguiled by a daft belief in progress, we do not critique them carefully enough.

Your Grace, non-mouse at 17.09 is on to something. It seems no coincidence that this idea has broken cover just before the forth-coming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to be held in Perth, Western Australia. Her Majesty will be attending.

Dave will no doubt spend time on critical meetings with the leaders of St Kitts, Antigua etc explaining the niceties of the Act of Settlement and why it is important to their nations for changes to be made. But doesn't this attention-seeking exercise give Dave a chance to shine? Isn't this what he wants?

Your communicant feels that the initiative is principally a PR exercise in trying to appear 'important'.

What your communicant would like to believe is this. That somewhere in the deepest mental recesses of the thickest Europhiles in the British Government the penny has dropped, and the EU is now recognised as the disaster the electorate understand it to be. It would be wonderful to believe that the political elite were in fact looking for a reason to re-engage with the Commonwealth and that the misconceived initiative is really an excuse to start a long conversation.

Your communicant recognises that his optimism will inevitably founder of the rocks of Dave's stupidity and incompetence.

How marvellous: the CofE is bringing out some ecumenical consensus among its non-members!

The truth is what it is. The CoE wouldn't survive disestablishment. Do you know who tells me this with the most fervor? Members of the CoE who don't like my assertion that conservatives should abandon it for healthier spiritual climes. Does the fate of the CoE that lurks behind disestablishment trouble me? Not in the least. The CoE is already far along the path blazed for it by TEC. It is a liberal church destined to become even more liberal with time. Disestablishment would bring the whole structure down around the heads of the liberals who run it. Objectively speaking, that is a good thing.

The future of Christianity in Britain must be found outside the CoE. That's why conservative shadow groups are starting to emerge. The hierarchy of the established church is compromised. It won't be recovered. Liberals can't be displaced from a position of political power in a hierarchical church. It's over. The church is dead. It just hasn't died yet. Those who love it must mourn its passing, and come to terms with burying it in the ground. It will never again be what it once was.

All part of the communist agenda,change for the sake of change,it bewilders the electorate,and removes the roots of who they are,and where they belong.Equality and freedom are mutually exclusive,if you have equality there is no freedom,if you have freedom you have no equality.Why we should change the fabric of our country simply to accomodate tribes that have not the slightest comprehension of our values,culture,and only care for thier own is the road to dispossession and extinction for the English people,still when mrs winsors case comes up for allegedly murdering red indian children in canada,we may be relieved of the trouble of removing her head,and that of her treacherous muslim offspring,and give harry hewit a go.

Let's not confuse the issues. Whilst we are both critical of an 'established' church, run by the State, I think we differ somewhat on other fundamentals.

Do you believe in the necessity of a divinely appointed priesthood to serve as channels of divine grace through a sacramental system? Or, do you believe the mercy of God is freely available to all men outwith the Apostolic church structure appointed by Christ?

This has, I think, been a tension within Anglicanism since its beginning and some have exploited this ambiquity.

Sadly Carl, I think you are basically right. Thirty years ago the CofE had a really interesting position within the world Church - a kind of go-between between Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox (not that you would see that as a good thing I suspect, but you'll understand I do). And they threw it all away over the ordination of women disobedience, and subsequently, over homosexuality. Such a loss. And what have they gained? Division and faithlessness - and a lot of very unhappy and good people going elsewhere.

It was a project that should never have been started, but one might have hoped more good could have come of it. The irony is, so many members of the CofE know this to be the truth. It has the stench of death about it.

Mr David B @ 02.24, if the EU and its Eurozone were not the principle causes of financial instability at present, presumably the IMF and the G20 would have happily stumped up more cash to bail the EU out.

As it is a bloc of responsible Anglophone nations (Australia, Canada and the USA) vetoed the EU proposal with the suggestion that the EU sort itself out rather than drag everyone else down too.

The global financial crisis may well have been triggered by Bill Clinton's corruption of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, but structural weaknesses in the EU have acted as a multiplier of the completely separate European sovereign debt crisis.

China is another issue, see recent comments by Secretary of State Clinton.

Returning to the original topic, David Cameron is effortlessly building a reputation for himself as the least attractive, least competent and least honest Prime Minster since Tony Blair. You can't believe a single word either of them say.

Do you believe in the necessity of a divinely appointed priesthood to serve as channels of divine grace through a sacramental system?

There is One High Priest Who makes intercession and offers sacrifice. There is the Priesthood of all believers. But there exists in the pages of the New Testament not one mention of the sacramental priesthood established by Rome. So, no, I do not accept the necessity of a sacramental priesthood. I reject without hesitation the sacramental system of justification that under-girds the Roman church. It stands at the center of the principle error of Romanism.

Or, do you believe the mercy of God is freely available to all men outwith the Apostolic church structure appointed by Christ?

Of course, I deny that the RCC has any connection to the Apostolic church structure appointed by Christ because I assert on the authority of Scripture that the RCC teaches a false gospel. See my previous comment about sacramentalism. God works though the Church. The churches are human organizations.

Of course, I am an American, and so my biases might be showing here. We are a nation that finds its origin in the persecution of the CoE. (Full disclosure and all that.) But I think dis-establishment would a good thing even for a healthy church. It is better for the church. It is better for the state. The points made by David B @15 October 2011 10:10 are well taken.

Ironic, because of course, that's what we believe: the priesthood wasn't established by Rome, so it's hardly surprising there is no mention of it!

To what does 'it' refer? The Priesthood or Rome? I presume you mean the 'priesthood' because that is all that could be mentioned in Scripture. If the sacramental priesthood wasn't established somewhere between the beginning of Matthew and the end of Revelation, then where was it established? Are you appealing to that Gnostic Mist called 'Sacred Tradition' as the defining authority?

But more seriously, what would constitute a "mention of the sacramental priesthood"? Does it actually have to use the word "priest" or just the function in the ministry?

This argument might have some merit if the sacramental function of the priesthood existed in Scripture, but of course it doesn't. Of the seven Roman sacraments, only two are mentioned in Scripture, and there is not a word regarding the sacramental superstructure built upon them. Rome is the Old Testament Temple system dressed up in New Testament cloth.

This change is far too strongly favoured for my taste by people who support abortion, want to abolish Catholic schools, and such like. With friends like the Lib Dems, the SNP and the National Secular Society...

There is a certain Spot The Deliberate Mistake quality to proposals to make the monarchy more egalitarian or (God help us all) "meritocratic". The Act of Settlement is good for us Catholics. It reminds us that we are different, and it does us the courtesy of taking our beliefs seriously by identifying them as a real challenge.

I question the viability of a Catholic community which devotes any great energy to the question of ascending the Throne while the born sleep in cardboard boxes on the streets and the pre-born are ripped from their mothers' wombs to be discarded as surgical waste.

Far from being a term of abuse, the word "Papist" is in fact the name under which the English Martyrs gave their lives, and expresses the cause for which they did so, making it a badge of honour, to be worn with pride.

The Protestant tradition is a fact of this country's history and culture. No good purpose would be served by denying it its constitutional recognition. And we must never countenance alliance with those who wish to remove Christianity as the basis of our State.

On matters such as this, we should listen to the voice of Recusancy, currently in the Commons (as it has been largely "reformed" - what an appropriate word! - out of the Lords) the voice of the gloriously anti-war Edward Leigh more than anyone. He has no time for this proposal, and rightly sees the whole thing as an excuse to bring the question of the monarchy to the floor of other Parliaments, particularly in Australia.

There is only one circumstance under which these changes could begin to be justified, namely that any Realm or Territory may leave the family defined by our shared monarch unless they were given effect, though not otherwise. Which is considering doing so?

The Queen is descended from the "negroid" Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. And via Elizabeth of York with her Moorish antecedents (back through the Kings of Portugal and Castile, to the old Moorish Kings of Seville), the Queen is also descended from Muhammad. There is no doubt about any of this, and it would have made a superb television programme.

Queen Charlotte, after whom the city in North Carolina is named, is shown clearly with light skin but African facial features in contemporaneous portraiture, and was spoken of as "negroid" without any self-consciousness during her lifetime.

She was descended from the part-black Royal House of Portugal, a member of which, Catherine of Braganza who was the consort of Charles II but from whom no one is descended (unlike her husband...), is shown looking just like a mixed-raced Briton of today in a portrait displayed in one of the private areas of Durham Castle.

You’ll no doubt get your wish. Some BBC producer will see your post and immediately commission the programme you want.

You see, the BBC is gushing when it comes to telling us how wonderful black and brown immigration has been for this country of (...formerly...) ours. Absolutely no hint of irony when they show archive footage of the Empire Windrush docking in a trailer, then onto the news, or “Tonight’s Riots” as it was those weeks ago. And when the riots have stopped, it’s Birmingham muslims plotting to blow us all up...

Perhaps, along with Fanny Mae and failings in European cohesion and general economic policy, an even deeper reason for the pigeons coming home to roost is many governments - including but not confined to Europe - failing to adhere to the basics of Keynes, to wit, borrowing to spend to get economies out of downturns, but not paying the debt back when the economy looks up.

As I recall, there were problems in Britain as a result of this failing before we joined the Common Market, as it was then termed.

I can agree that the economic policies of the EU have been less than wise.

As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on Cameron. I was impressed by his start, bringing a reasonably strong coalition together in such dangerous times, and holding it together so far, in the face of some internal opposition.

The same can be said of Clegg, whose politics are more to my personal taste.

Cameron, IMV, has a long way to fall before he can be lumped together with Bliar and Brown.

@David Lindsay 15.58

I think very few people are in favour of abortion - I myself am not.

Seeing it as sometimes the lesser of evils is another matter, as is imposing views that it can never be the lesser of evils upon those who disagree.

I cannot think of anyone of my acquaintance in my long experience of secular discussion boards who want to abolish Catholic schools, or CoE schools, or Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or whatever schools.

There are issues of personal freedom to think of, even when people use that freedom to do things that I rather dislike. Scientology schools, anyone?

Wanting to stop public funding for them is another matter, as far as I am concerned. I do not see it as a function of a state to support any religion or all religions.

I can't make out the statement"An amendment which admits Roman Catholics into the Royal fold effectively absolves all citizens of their allegiance, thereby opening the way for republican terrorists like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to take their seats in Parliament." McGuiness and Adams have sat in Parliament and with regard to allegience did your Grace proclaim allegiance to the Queen when she signed the Abortion Bill.

Indeed Your Grace, they refused to sit in Parliament. The way had already been opened for them to sit so it has nothing to do with Catholics being admitted to the Royal fold and it does not imply that Catholics do not have any allegiance to the Queen. Some may not have but I suspect that a far greater number of people with no religious affiliation would suuport the abolishment of the monarchy. Catholics are certainly not at the forefront of that movement.

Indeed Your Grace, they refused to sit in Parliament. The way had already been opened for them to sit so it has nothing to do with Catholics being admitted to the Royal fold and it does not imply that Catholics do not have any allegiance to the Queen. Some may not have but I suspect that a far greater number of people with no religious affiliation would suuport the abolishment of the monarchy. Catholics are certainly not at the forefront of that movement.

You appear to have got the wrong end of the stick. It is more likely to be Protestants who refuse to swear allegiance - in addition to those who have long been in search of an 'excuse' for not doing so.

I will say to you what I say to the homosexual apologist who asks a similar question. Prove to me from sound exegesis based upon sound hermaneutic that your position is Scripturally correct. This you will not be able to accomplish because you will have to appeal to the authority of Rome to establish your position.

Words have meaning. Meanings can be understood. The doctrines of Rome are not found in Scripture. They are found in the authoritative pronouncements of Rome and back-filled into Scripture. That is how I know they are wrong.

Mr DavidB @ 19.28, my problem with Dave is that he always seems to be completely out of touch with the electorate.

Through no fault of his own he has lived a life of inherited privilege, which is entirely within the law. But prior to knifing his way to the top of the Conservative Party, I can't think of anything that Dave actually achieved. He has certainly never built a business successfully or been involved in a public service at any level in his pre-polical life. Indeed, there has been no pre-political life, and Dave is one of a very few MPs whose standard of living would probably increase if he left the Parliament.

Dave's life experience is therefore totally divorced from that of the broad mass of the British people. Dave could just as easily be some governor-general dispatched from the imperial power and sent out to administer the British province...

Prove to me from sound exegesis based upon sound hermaneutic that your position is Scripturally correct.

But that's the problem. Scripture nowhere sets you up as the final arbiter of scripture. Every heresy has been argued from scripture, while many true doctrinesa require more than simple "sound exegesis" (why did Luther need to add the word "alone" to his translation of Romans if the doctrine was clearly there? and we both know what he said about the Epistle of James. It seem then that if your doctrine of scripture is true, then justification by faith alone is not scriptural, and if your doctrine of justification by faith alone is true then your doctrine of scripture is false).

On the other hand, scripture says: There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

It seems to me therefore, that what that your principle, Prove to me from sound exegesis based upon sound hermaneutic that your position is Scripturally correct, is a movable feast built upon unsound exegesis and unsound hermeneutics.

Sorry for intruding and I do hope you continue this discussion. Two men of logic and restraint will progress further than my acrimonious disputes with others

Obviously it doesn't say in the bible there will be a Pope, seven sacraments and Papal infallability!

This issue of scripture alone always confuses me. What was there before the 'scripture' of the New Testament? And wasn't the canon of scripture endorsed after some 300 years of Christianity. Did nothing that went before carry any meaning or significance?

Is it written anywhere in scripture that the teaching of the church must be constrained by direct reference to scripture?

I think when Christ commissioned Peter and Apostles to lead His church and passed the 'Keys to the Kingdom' and the power to 'loose and bind' He gave the church authority to develop its theology in accord with its unfolding understanding of the bible, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm afraid I dont's know how to, or even if, I can separate quotes out in the format of this blog, so I shall just have to do the best I can by putting your bits physically in quotes.

"Sorry for intruding and I do hope you continue this discussion. Two men of logic and restraint will progress further than my acrimonious disputes with others"

Yeah, guys, carry on without us by all means.

"Obviously it doesn't say in the bible there will be a Pope, seven sacraments and Papal infallability!"

Indeed not!

"This issue of scripture alone always confuses me. What was there before the 'scripture' of the New Testament?"

All sorts of stuff in China, India, the Middle East, the Americas, Europe....considering questions of origins, life after death, the human condition etc

"And wasn't the canon of scripture endorsed after some 300 years of Christianity."

So I understand. In part, I also understand, because some bloke called Irenaeus believed some numerological nonsense about th significance of the number 4.

[quote] Did nothing that went before carry any meaning or significance?[/quote]

Democritus, Lao Tsu, Marcus Aurelius, Aristotle, Veda Vyasa, the list goes on, as people concerned about the human condition, based on the best information at the time.

"Is it written anywhere in scripture that the teaching of the church must be constrained by direct reference to scripture?"

Well there are some things. One of them seems to pretty strongly imply that Leviticus still rules.

Matt 5: 18-19

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

"I think when Christ commissioned Peter and Apostles to lead His church and passed the 'Keys to the Kingdom' and the power to 'loose and bind' He gave the church authority to develop its theology in accord with its unfolding understanding of the bible, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit."

Matt 5:18-19 would seem to contradict this, even given that Christ did indeed commission Peter as you state, and given that that carries more weight that the commission allegedly give to Jo Smith by Moroni.

5. Hope no one notices that the choice of Infallible Interpreter is itself a fallible choice.

How do I know the RCC is the Infallible Interpreter? Can I test it against Scripture? No, because you just asserted I need an infallible interpreter to understand Scripture. So what does that leave me? What other standard do I possess? You have reduced me to an arbitrary choice of submitting myself to the spiritual authority of a temporal organization. At which point I must commit myself to read the Scripture in accordance with RC dogma. I must also accept that there exists a body of knowledge called Sacred Tradition that I do not know and can never know. I must accept that I cannot understand Scripture in the absence of that body of knowledge. In other words, I must arbitrarily place myself into the spiritual hands of the RCC without any ability to test its claims. I must consider it the sole mediator of truth between God and man on nothing more than its assertion. In a word, No.

The difference between a Protestant and a Catholic is that a Protestant presumes about Scripture what a RC presumes about the RCC. We look to different authorities and that is why we arrive at different answers.

But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says it is. Scripture’s authority is derived from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man—it has an authority independent of the Church. Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is because the Scriptures themselves make that claim. This is significant because if they did not claim divine inspiration for themselves then we would have no right to claim it for them. However, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes: ‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God.Timothy (3:15-17):From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture.The words from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 are very important. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13).The Roman Catholic Church, as already shown by Ernst and their comments, teaches that Scripture alone is not all-sufficient—it must be supplemented by a tradition which is equally inspired. But, as we shall see below, the Apostle Paul never claims that tradition is inspired, authoritative and profitable in the same way as the Word of God. If the Scriptures are not sufficient and God has indeed given the Church tradition as a separate source of revelation, why is this never mentioned in Scripture itself? After all, Paul is writing about the Old Testament in this passage and there existed, beside Scripture, an extensive Jewish tradition, directly related to it, to which he could have referred. But he did not do so. So while we are told in unequivocal terms that Scripture is inspired, the Word of God is completely silent about the inspiration of tradition.To argue, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that Scripture is profitable but not sufficient as a rule of faith is to twist its meaning in order to defend a man-made tradition. This is not a new phenomenon. The Pharisees, according to Jesus, misinterpreted Scripture in order to adhere to their tradition and he condemned them for it (Matt. 15:1-9). But in both cases the Bible’s clear statement remains—Scripture is sufficient ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work’.Ernsty

But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says it is. Scripture’s authority is derived from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man—it has an authority independent of the Church. Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is because the Scriptures themselves make that claim. This is significant because if they did not claim divine inspiration for themselves then we would have no right to claim it for them. However, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes: ‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God.Timothy (3:15-17):From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture.The words from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 are very important. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13).The Roman Catholic Church, as already shown by Ernst and their comments, teaches that Scripture alone is not all-sufficient—it must be supplemented by a tradition which is equally inspired. But, as we shall see below, the Apostle Paul never claims that tradition is inspired, authoritative and profitable in the same way as the Word of God. If the Scriptures are not sufficient and God has indeed given the Church tradition as a separate source of revelation, why is this never mentioned in Scripture itself? After all, Paul is writing about the Old Testament in this passage and there existed, beside Scripture, an extensive Jewish tradition, directly related to it, to which he could have referred. But he did not do so. So while we are told in unequivocal terms that Scripture is inspired, the Word of God is completely silent about the inspiration of tradition.To argue, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that Scripture is profitable but not sufficient as a rule of faith is to twist its meaning in order to defend a man-made tradition. This is not a new phenomenon. The Pharisees, according to Jesus, misinterpreted Scripture in order to adhere to their tradition and he condemned them for it (Matt. 15:1-9). But in both cases the Bible’s clear statement remains—Scripture is sufficient ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work’.Ernsty

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the norm that norms all other norms. It doesn't mean that it answers every question on every subject that man could devise. It does not mean that the church doesn't have a teaching function. It does not mean that a man should take his Bible and go off alone under a tree. It means that there is no authority above the Scripture given to men to reveal what God requires. That most specifically includes the church.

You cannot render the Scripture null and void to establish your traditions. It doesn't matter if you call it development of doctrine. The RCC flatly contradicts the Scripture in its teachings and when challenged from the Scripture simply asserts its position as the infallible interpreter. But I can read. As I said before, words have meaning and meanings can be understood. Not everything in Scripture is hard.

But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says it is. Scripture’s authority is derived from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man—it has an authority independent of the Church. In this chapter we want to examine the nature of that authority and the claim that Scripture is inspired by God and thereby trustworthy.

The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is because the Scriptures themselves make that claim. This is significant because if they did not claim divine inspiration for themselves then we would have no right to claim it for them. However, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes: ‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God.1

The fullest statement on the divine inspiration of Scripture, however, is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:15-17):

From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13).

The words from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 are very important. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth.

In his letter to Timothy, Paul tells his young coworker of the functions of the Word of God in the light of its divine inspiration. The Scriptures are ‘profitable’ or ‘useful’2 for instruction in doctrine—that is, they teach us what we are to believe and practise with respect to God and godliness—and they are also given to reprove and to correct false doctrine. The Word of God checks us where we are wrong and shows us how to correct ourselves; and this whole process of teaching, reproving and correcting trains us in righteousness. As we submit to the Word of God we are instructed in truth and directed how to live, and this makes us ‘adequate’ for every good work and for doing the will of God. The word Paul uses for adequate is artios, which means ‘complete’ (or ‘perfect’). So Paul is arguing that the Scriptures are sufficient for an individual to be perfectly equipped for knowing and doing the will of God in the areas of faith and morals, because they are authoritatively given for that purpose.

The Roman Catholic Church, as already shown, teaches that Scripture alone is not all-sufficient—it must be supplemented by a tradition which is equally inspired. But, as we shall see below, the Apostle Paul never claims that tradition is inspired, authoritative and profitable in the same way as the Word of God. If the Scriptures are not sufficient and God has indeed given the Church tradition as a separate source of revelation, why is this never mentioned in Scripture itself? After all, Paul is writing about the Old Testament in this passage and there existed, beside Scripture, an extensive Jewish tradition, directly related to it, to which he could have referred. But he did not do so. So while we are told in unequivocal terms that Scripture is inspired, the Word of God is completely silent about the inspiration of tradition.

To argue, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that Scripture is profitable but not sufficient as a rule of faith is to twist its meaning in order to defend a man-made tradition. This is not a new phenomenon. The Pharisees, according to Jesus, misinterpreted Scripture in order to adhere to their tradition and he condemned them for it (Matt. 15:1-9). But in both cases the Bible’s clear statement remains—Scripture is sufficient ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work’.

The sufficiency of Scripture, and therefore ‘sola scriptura’, is implicit in what he says and in the rest of biblical testimony Just as Sola Fide is laid out as the great statement of justification and stated as such though no word for alone is stated or the word itself is not found in Scripture.The teaching for which the word stands is in Scripture and therefore the use of the term is warranted. Specific scriptural descriptions of the Word of God, which speak of its nature and function, lead us inescapably to this conclusion. (Albert keeps asking re Sola so Ernst hopes he has enlightened him!)

The truth contained in the word ‘trinity’ stands upon exactly the same basis. The word itself is not found in Scripture. But it is a convenient term for summing up the general teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the nature of God. The teaching for which the word stands is in Scripture and therefore the use of the term is warranted. In like manner the terms ‘sufficiency’ or ‘sola scriptura’ sum up the overall teaching of Scripture about itself. Specific scriptural descriptions of the Word of God, which speak of its nature and function, lead us inescapably to this conclusion.

It is impossible to find a more convincing argument for the sufficiency of Scripture than these descriptions. And no such language is ever used about tradition in the Scriptures. Nowhere does it receive such commendation. We are told in explicit terms that Scripture is inspired, but never is that said of tradition. On the contrary, when the New Testament speaks of tradition it does so in words of warning (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18; Gal. 1:14). When we look at the overall teaching of Scripture about itself and tradition, it is surely clear that it teaches that Scripture is sufficient.

Any claim that such belief in Scripture was created by Paul and the other disciples must also be rejected. It is the express teaching of Jesus Christ himself. Christianity is founded upon the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. His attitude to the Scriptures is supremely important. Since he is God, then all that he teaches must be true and authoritative.

"The difference between a Protestant and a Catholic is that a Protestant presumes about Scripture what a RC presumes about the RCC. We look to different authorities and that is why we arrive at different answers."

Danjo,One would think the Holy Spirit, once enabled, would sort that out. He has!.

The Holy Spirit always confirms scripture which is the Words of Christ Himself.

The Catholic Church follows the Pope (with his false claim to be the' vicar of Christ'instead of the Holy Spirit.Islam (which has much in common with Catholicism ,some claim that Islam is a Catholic invention!) claims that Mohammed is the 'vicar of Christ'.Islam claims that Mohammed is the 'another in my name' that Jesus promised.The fact that Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments. I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever,--the Spirit of truth, whom the world can't receive; for it doesn't see him, neither knows him.(John 14)

This Truth spoken by Jesus Himself doesn`t seem to bother either Islam or Catholicism.They both have replaced the Holy Spirit with their 'own man',Catholics with the Pope and Islam with Mohammed.

Both these 'religions' are shown to be false by their actions and their denial of the Truth as spoken by Jesus Christ.There are many who prefer the lie to the Truth and will fight 'tooth and nail'to hang on to their misconceptions(mainly through pride and not being willing to admit they were wrong )

Don`t bother telling those entangled in either of these religions this because history is littered with the corpses of those who attempted this!.)

But that's the point. You cannot know that, unless you are the arbitrator of scripture's meaning. You have given me no reason to think you except the following presumption:

a Protestant presumes about Scripture

Well if a Protestant has to presume on the subject it would seem that the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the Perspicuity of scripture are self-referentially incoherent.

The falsity of the Perspicuity of scripture (etc.) is born out by the fact that from the beginning you Protestants have not been able to agree on basic doctrines.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the norm that norms all other norms. It doesn't mean that it answers every question on every subject that man could devise. It does not mean that the church doesn't have a teaching function. It does not mean that a man should take his Bible and go off alone under a tree. It means that there is no authority above the Scripture given to men to reveal what God requires. That most specifically includes the church.

It may surprise you that I really agree with that. The issue here is not the authority of the Scriptures but the authority of the interpreter.

You confuse the true statement:

1. The scriptures are superior to the Church.

with the false inference:

2. Therefore, Carl's interpretation of scripture is superior to that of the Church.

The RCC flatly contradicts the Scripture in its teachings and when challenged from the Scripture simply asserts its position as the infallible interpreter

I don't think it does at all. But I do think you Protestants flatly contradict scripture - and I think Luther gave the game away on that and the endless disgreements amongst you confirms it.

I think you also fail to see the role your philosophical presuppositions play in your reading. Protestant teaching reflects a nominalist philosophical background - without that context it never occurred and would never have occurred. The doctrine makes no sense (except as a doctrine of annihilation) in other philosophical contexts. Liberate the text from such late Medieval philosophy and all sorts of Protestant difficulties evaporate.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the words of Paul in the Bible actually reflects Paul's thoughts and words,, many people have believed subsequently that Scripture is inspired by God. Including Harold Camping, Charles Taze Russell, the Rapture Ready people, and other doomsday cultists, all of whose predictions to date have proved inaccurate.

"He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13)."

There are many parts of Paul's letters which require a lot of special pleading to interpret as other than teaching that the world would end within the lifetimes of the people he was preaching to.

Is Paul someone to be considered more reliable than Charles Taze Russell, and, if so, on what grounds?

All this really proves my point................... the ONLY interpreter of Scripture IS the Holy Spirit.

Not Popes ,not Scribes or prophets with another 'revelation'or claims of 'infallibility'.

Paul`s writings and indeed Peter`s writings are open to misinterpretation(deliberate or otherwise) that is why Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to enable us to lead the Christian life and to understand the Scriptures.

John 16:12-15)12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

(This cannot be made any plainer to understand, in fact you will need someone to help you misunderstand it, and there is plenty of help available!.)

Now God is NOT the author of confusion so all those who claim to know the truth but cannot back this'truth' up with Scripture(the Word of God ) are either fools, deceived or Charlatans.Take your pick!.Many men were martyred putting the Bible( the Word of God )into the hands of the Common Man so he didn`t need to go through a corrupt priesthood system.The Catholic religious system did all it could to prevent the Bible falling into the hands of men in a common language so that all could read because it would expose all their errors and additions!.

All this really proves my point................... the ONLY interpreter of Scripture IS the Holy Spirit.

Quite. And how do you know who has the Holy Spirit? In the NT we see the Church being taught - it cannot be purely individualistic therefore.

Now God is NOT the author of confusion

Indeed, so how do you explain the confusion of the Protestant Reformation?

all those who claim to know the truth but cannot back this'truth' up with Scripture(the Word of God ) are either fools, deceived or Charlatans

There's a non-sequitur there, but who has conceded that they cannot back up their teaching from scripture? Are you getting at Luther who needed to corrupt his translation to make it say what he wanted it to say?

Many men were martyred putting the Bible( the Word of God )into the hands of the Common Man so he didn`t need to go through a corrupt priesthood system.The Catholic religious system did all it could to prevent the Bible falling into the hands of men in a common language so that all could read because it would expose all their errors and additions

And how do we have the Scriptures, if not because, for centuries, Catholics painstakingly copied them out, generation after generation?

Carl says “The RCC flatly contradicts the Scripture in its teachings… “. I’m not sure to which scripture passages you are referring but your statement definitely refers to Protestantism. It is Protestantism that has legalized divorce, justified abortion (albeit in limited circumstances), inserted words into scripture (via Martin Luther), justified the divine right of kings (in spiritual matters) and invented the erroneous doctrine of predestination. Your right though, not everything in scripture is hard. However, some things are. Even the Acts of the Apostles tell us that the early Church had the same struggles with doctrine that we have. Jesus clearly intended to establish a Church (see Matthew 16) and promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide it. That is not difficult to read or understand and taken together with all the admonitions of SS Peter and Paul it is clear that scripture itself tells us that there is an Earthly authority which bows to the authority of Christ and the Spirit and which the people should listen to and obey. Even Martin Luther complained when people started reading scripture for themselves and started making up their own interpretations which then had to be corrected by Luther i.e. the Protestant Pope.

Bibles.Constantine, the professed 'Christian' who secretly worshipped the sun god, ordered Eusebius (the bishop of Caesarea) to make 50 Bibles for him.(Constantine was the first Pope and the' founder' of the Catholic religion). Eusebius had the choice of using the Greek manuscripts from Antioch or from Alexandria to make up the 50 Greek Bibles. He believed the same as Origen. He was not a real Christian. He used the corrupted manuscripts of Egypt to make his Bibles for the Roman Catholic Church. From those 50 Bibles came the Latin vulgate, written by Jerome. It became the official Bible for Roman Catholics. In 1525 Tyndale used the Textus Receptus to translate the Word of God into the English language. The Catholic Church burned him at the stake for doing so. The Vatican's power over the world was falling apart because of the Protestant reformation. All the preachers, including Luther and Tyndale, called the Pope the antichrist.

In 1534 Pope Paul III ordered a Spaniard named Ignatius de Loyola to set up the "Order of the Jesuits." Their purpose was to stop the spread of Protestantism. In 1541 Ignatius Loyola became the first Jesuit general and his followers were dedicated to the complete destruction of the Textus Receptus by denying that the Word of God is verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit and by placing their own theology and philosophy above the holy scriptures.The English royalty rebelled against the Pope's temporal authority as the "Only lawful ruler of the world." Because of it, the Pope sent undercover Jesuits to England to infiltrate key positions and destroy from within. They were to translate Origen's corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts into an English Bible in 1582. They did this, but the English people rejected the Jesuit bibles.

Constantine was the first Pope and the' founder' of the Catholic religion

Would you please defend that proposition?

Eusebius had the choice of using the Greek manuscripts from Antioch or from Alexandria to make up the 50 Greek Bibles. He believed the same as Origen. He was not a real Christian. He used the corrupted manuscripts of Egypt to make his Bibles for the Roman Catholic Church

Eusebius was an Arian, and not a Catholic. He was closer to your Socinius than our Athanasius.

Tyndale used the Textus Receptus

And where did those manuscripts come from?

All the preachers, including Luther

Would that be the same Luther who corrupted his German translation of the Word of God, and called some of the Word of God an "Epistle of Straw".

You’re losing your marbles Len. As time goes on your statements become more unbelievable and your indoctrination more obvious. Why don’t you read Leithart’s book “Defending Constantine”. Leithart is a Lutheran.

Ignatius was not ordered to found the Jesuits “Ignatius founded the Society after being wounded in battle and experiencing a religious conversion. “ Wikipedia. Here’s what New Advent has to say: [Ignatius Loyola] :“began his self-reform, and the enlistment of followers, entirely prepossessed with the idea of the imitation of Christ, and without any plan for a religious order … The Society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the Constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. …. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniards.

Albert, Since the formation of the Roman Empire, the Roman emperors (including Constantine) held the office of Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Priest) and were worshipped by the pagans as gods. Emperor Gratian in 376 A.D. refused the title of Pontifex Maximus, and from then on it was bestowed upon the bishop of Rome. From hereon, the bishop of Rome was to be the Supreme Priest to the pagans and the head of the 'Christian' church; the streams of paganism and Christianity flowed together under the leadership of Pontifex Maximus, ultimately to be called the Pope. The question remains, how can a man at the same time be the Pontifex Maximus which was the head of the pagan mysteries and the head of the church? Although the Roman Catholic church claims that Peter was the first Pope, it is strange that we never read any such claim by Peter. The fact that Jesus never instituted the office of Pope in his church during his earthly ministry plainly shows that the Pope is neither Bishop of bishops nor the successor of the apostle Peter.

People do not realize that counterfeit religions, like counterfeit money, must resemble the genuine in order to deceive those who lack spiritual discernment or those who have not had the opportunity or taken the time to carefully compare all the major tenets of Roman Catholicism with the truth of God's Word. Only when one compares men's words with Scripture will it become obvious that Roman Catholicism is a carefully crafted counterfeit, not the pure, genuine, Biblical faith.

All it takes is a little time, a Bible,and a desire to know the truth to blow away the delusion that is Catholicism.

I would advise all so interested to do so immediately, your eternal destiny hangs upon discovering the truth .

Len Albert asked "Constantine was the first Pope and the' founder' of the Catholic religion

Would you please defend that proposition?" Don't bother, Ernst has answered from history this point to Tiberians, including albert and it is ignored as wily confusion!

"Tyndale used the Textus Receptus

And where did those manuscripts come from?" *Chortling* One of Ernst's legendary scholars was Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, a weak man who could not bring himself to leave Rome but really hoped he could bring about change from within.

Quotes from Erasmus about his thoughts ""As to me, all I have sought has been to open my contemporaries' eyes and bring them back from ritual to true Christianity."

"Read the Gospels … and see how we have degenerated."

"A man of piety would feel that he could not employ his time better than in bringing little ones to Christ."

"We must forget ourselves, and think , first of Christ's glory.""Not very RC, is it?

Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries to come and was largely used by Ernst beloved translator William Tyndale for his Bible in ENGLISH. Hurrah!!!

However, Rome then took it's revenge... "In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books.""He was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers" "The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus' translation" of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a perverted Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all. He refused to use St Jerome's sources for the Latin Vulgate!In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus' works, with a view to having Erasmus condemned , as a heretic."

Ernst would recommed his adages, Wonderfully enlightening and so humourous. Why Ernst is so fond of the lad.

"Would that be the same Luther who corrupted his German translation of the Word of God, and called some of the Word of God an "Epistle of Straw". " Does anyone claim 'infallibility' for him..He was in error but did much good and this quote only appears in Luther's original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther's Bible dropped the "epistle of straw" comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For Albert to cite Luther's "epistle of straw" comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment.Has any pope ever extracted their glaring errors declared in writing?Luther in his preface to James praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.Jerome recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Luther did not consider James to be James the Apostle. He wasn't alone in this. Erasmus also questioned the authenticity of James, as did CARDINAL CAJETAN, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars.Luther possibly saw a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works (RC Leftovers, perhaps?).Also, he did not actively reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion effected reconciliation between Paul and James. 'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " [Here I Stand, 259]. Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the Council of Trent's declaration. The New Catholic Encyclopedia points out,

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."

Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed some doubt.Their's was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of The Holy Bible, and published it.Concluding, Luther says he cannot include James among his chief books "though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him." These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or a "super-pope" as Ernst is challenging by argument!

Keep up the good fight, my old boy, don't let those tiberians get thee down. Ernst is watching in admiration.

Ernst considers Luther was nothing more than a sinner saved by grace, obviously imperfect and bringing/leaving some errors from Rome, yet used by God during a crucial period in history to free His people from continuing in error..

You referred to Luther with approval - despite the fact that you presumably know his cavalier attitude to the Word of God. Perhaps you also wish me to accept his position on killing peasants or on bigamy? Or is it only when he is attacking the Bride of Christ that you approve of him?

The use of the title Pontifex Maximus does not indicate the paganising of Catholicism, rather it indicates the submission of pagan Rome to the Church. It is an example of the spoiling of the Egyptians.

have you studied the History of the Popes, do you still consider them 'men of God'?

I assume from that that you are a Donatist. Judas Iscariot was still an Apostle and he cast out devils and proclaimed Jesus Christ. The promises of Christ guarantee the teaching of the Apostles, not their conduct. You cannot ask for more from the Church's ministers than was given to the apostles.

Peter was the first Pope, it is strange that we never read any such claim by Peter

Strictly speaking, the Pope is the successor of Peter, thus Peter could hardly claim to be a Pope.

The fact that Jesus never instituted the office of Pope in his church during his earthly ministry

What place is there in your theology for Mt.16?

Ernst,

One of Ernst's legendary scholars was Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus

And where did Erasmus get his manuscripts from? Google?

No one doubts that the Church was, as it always is to some extent, corrupt. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. But it is the faith that makes the Church and on that matter, Erasmus remained Catholic. He complained that on Luther's doctrine, God had created hell in which to “punish his own evil deeds in wretched human beings”? Does that sound like the words of Protestant? Indeed, does Luther's doctrine sound truly Christian?

It doesn't matter how you wriggle on Luther and the Epistle of James. The fact is that at the time he was developing his theology he had to reject James. He said that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul.

Did it ever occur to him that it was his interpretation of Paul that way as fault?

Luther:

We are not saved by works

Bible

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

It is fascinating, is it not, that the only time that "faith alone" actually appears in the Bible (the real Bible, not Luther's corruption) it is when the Bible is contradicting the "faith alone" doctrine.

And where did the church fathers get this Books/Letters from? (Did Athanasius write the book of Romans to Rome or The Acts of the Apostles from eye witnesses still living in Rome and then written down by monks, verbatim? and why were these many Books/Letters recognised as authentic amongst the early churchs prior to canonisation into ordered codices (The new testament Canon is based on the following summary principles.

1. The books must be an written by an Eye-Witness of Jesus. (Writing by the early apostles)2. The books must be commonly known and used by numerous churches (Many churches in the first century onwards use it to be read during services)3. The books must not be self contradictory and contains heretical teachings.) and apocrypha rejected as unscriptural and not inspired texts, to not be added to the official canon but separated?.

No one doubts that the Church was, as it always is to some extent, corrupt.(Yes, your church abounded in corruption that it perpetuates to this day! One of Erasmus' best known works is 'In Praise of Folly'. Erasmus dedicated Folly to his friend, Thomas More. This work is a satire in which the personification of Folly praises the foolish activities of the day. Some of the subjects he attacked were superstitious religious practices and the VANITY OF CHURCH LEADERS. One such superstition was the sale of Indulgences by the Church, which its leaders (Popes, Cardinals and Bishops) sold in order to raise money for building projects. Indulgences were supposed to reduce the time a sinner would spend in purgatory. Erasmus felt that this was an abuse of ecclesiastical power. He also blasted people for PRAYING TO THE SAINTS INSTEAD OF GOD HIMSELF, because he recognized that salvation came ONLY through Christ. His goal was to promote basic Christian values. (Some Roman Catholic?)

Throughout the work, he continued to satirize other groups, including peasants, poets, rhetoricians, and narrow-minded natural scientists. He especially satirized the monastic orders. He castigated the monks and church leaders for taking vows of poverty and then not honoring them. Pointing out that many bishops lived in wealth, he rebuked them for being more concerned with the pursuit of financial gain than fulfilling the spiritual needs of their flock. ) We have this treasure in earthen vessels. But it is the faith that makes the Church (Rome, yes?) and on that matter, Erasmus remained Catholic (He hoped he could make a difference as Colet did, They Did Not!). He complained that on Luther's doctrine, God had created hell in which to “punish his own evil deeds in wretched human beings”? Does that sound like the words of Protestant? (However, you miss Erasmus' retraction as Erasmus regretted the step he had taken on the doctrine of Free Will. D'Aubigne quotes him as saying:"`Why was I not permitted to grow old in the garden of the Muses?' exclaimed he.`Here am I, at sixty, driven into the arena, and holding the cestus and the net of thegladiator, instead of the lyre!- I am aware,' wrote he to the Bishop of Rochester, `that inwriting upon free will, I have gone beyond my sphere ... You congratulate me upon mytriumphs! Ah! I know not that I triumph. The faction (i. e. the Reformation) is spreadingdaily. Was it then fated, that at my time of life I should be transformed from a friend ofthe Muses into a wretched gladiator!"')

He also stated 1 Erasmus believed that baptism should be by full immersion and should come only after one had accepted Christ as his or her personal Savior.2 He felt that war was senseless since it only caused destruction and death. Those who engaged in war he rebuked as having no greater morality than beasts.3 He believed God equipped mankind with the capacity for love, empathy, and kindness: virtues which were not displayed during times of war (especiallly by warlord Popes).4 He felt Christian’s lives should exemplify Christ at all times.5"The corruption… [and] the degeneracy of the Holy See are universally admitted…" 6 "The Catholics, instead of repenting of their sins, pile superstition on superstition…".7 "They pretend to resemble the Apostles, and they are filthy, ignorant, impudent vagabonds…They quarrel with each other and curse each other. They pretend to poverty, but they steal into honest men's houses and pollute them, and wasps as they are, no one dares refuse them admittance for fear of their stings." --Erasmus in Moria.8 "I told parsons [clergymen] to leave their wranglings and read the Bible… I told popes and cardinals to look at the Apostles, and make themselves more like to them" 9 "I advised divines to leave scholastic subtleties and study Scriptures… I wish there could be an end of scholastic subtleties, or, if not an end, that they could be thrust into a second place, and Christ be taught plainly and simply. The reading of the Bible… will have this effect. Doctrines are taught now which have affinity with Christ and only darken our eyes" 10 Erasmus further limited his involvement with the struggle between the Reformers and the Catholic Church by refusing to state outright that one was absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. His ability to separate himself from the religious intrigues lends credence to the veracity of his commentaries on both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church.Do read Erasmus' books, Enchiridion and Praise of Folly, they were satires attacking Rome's doctrines.

Does that sound like the words of a Roman Catholic?

Quotes from Erasmus and others about Erasmus;

Regarding reformation needed at Rome but "Had not conciliatory measures been employed for ages? Had not council after council been involved to reform the Church? All had been unavailing. Why now pretend to repeat an experiment that had so often failed?...It is clear that the leading principle of Erasmus was as stated `Give light, and the darkness will disappear of itself.' This principle is good, and Luther acted upon it. But when the enemies of the light endeavour to extinguish it, or to wrest the torch from the hand of him who bears it, must we (for the sake of peace) allow him to do so? Must we not resist the wicked?...Others stated "He [Erasmus] had not the strength of faith which animated Luther. While the latter was ever prepared to lay down his life for the truth, Erasmus candidly observed, `Let others aspire to martyrdom: as for me, I do not think myself worthy of such an honour. I fear that if any disturbance were to arise, I should imitate Peter in his fall."' Very Weak but Ernst still loves the poor soul who loved the Lord greatly and did mighty work.

Indeed, does Luther's doctrine sound truly Christian? (He sounds like a man who could not fully free himself from the yoke of Rome's doctrines completely, hence the anomalies that stuck, as Ernst has quoted previously)

It doesn't matter how you wriggle on Luther and the Epistle of James. The fact is that at the time he was developing his theology he had to reject James. He said that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul.* Big Chuckles* Ernst has shown you Luther wearing his beret himself or can you not understand english?"'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " [Here I Stand, 259]. "Look at the dates, Lad 'Luther's original 1522 Preface to the New Testament, After 1522, all the editions of Luther's Bible dropped the "epistle of straw and words quoted from [Here I Stand, 259, speaking with a beret on his bonce]. ".

Did it ever occur to him that it was his interpretation of Paul that way as fault? Severely doubt it but he was no pope, was he?

Luther (AND ST PAUL):

We are not saved by works

Bible (Rome and It's Successor's interpretation!)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (Outrageous, see the full context20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.

It is fascinating, is it not, that the only time that "faith alone" actually appears in the Bible (the real Bible, not Luther's corruption) it is when the Bible is contradicting the "faith alone" doctrine, unless of course you take it out of context and forget the preceding verses..(You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete (shown) by what he did.) Very Important which comes first and that which JUSTIFIES! .Ernst

Erasmus, as great a thinker as he was, also accepted the final authority of Rome on all matters concerning doctrine and dogma. Show me where he ever contested this. He was debating issues within the one univeral church - like Thomas More, his great friend.

As a Catholic, I might have all sorts of ideas and theological speculations and criticisms of the Church that I am at liberty to give voice to - within reason. However, like Erasamus, I accept that God, in His wisdom, charged His Vicar on earth, the Pope, the successor of St Peter, to be the final authority in these matters until the return of His Son.

Luther, on the other hand, filled with desperation a sense of his own self importance, disobeyed the Church and ushered in disunity and all sorts of error. Indeed, in the end, he turned out to be as dogmatic and and autocratic as the institution he challenged!

Erasamus was and remained a faithful Roman Catholic and his ideas influenced .the counter-reformation

Erasmus may have been a professing Catholic but was not a practicing Catholic. Was Erasmus a Catholic? Yes, but so was everyone else (except the Baptistic Waldensians) in this day. Erasmus was clearly a Reformer at heart in his writings. Erasmus constantly criticized the doctrinal and practical errors of Rome and its Bible, the Latin Vulgate, which he rejected. Martin Luther, an anti-Romanist, used Erasmus to translate his German New Testament. Would Luther have used a Roman Catholic text to translate a Protestant Bible? Erasmus died among Protestant friends, outside of the Catholic Church.If Erasmus was so "Catholic" and his text so "Catholic," then who were the enemies of the Roman church? And why was Erasmus' manuscript never adopted by Rome? Why did Luther refer to Erasmus' second edition as "my wife" if Erasmus was so Catholic?Erasmus Greek New Testament was placed on Rome's Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Trent, which meant that it is forbidden for Catholics to even read it without approval from their bishop upon pain of mortal sin.

Hugh Pope, under an official Roman Catholic imprimatur and nihil obstat, says Erasmus was a heretic from Rome. He scoffed at images, relics, pilgrimages and Good Friday observances. Pope suggested Erasmus had serious doubts about every article of Catholic faith: the mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting, transubstantiation and abstinence. He also ridiculed invocation of the saints, reverence for relics and prayers to Mary. There was scarcely any superstition or abuse in the Roman Church that Erasmus did not denounce.It is obvious then that Rome certainly has no desire to claim Erasmus. Erasmus was also a vocal opponent of Roman scholastic theology and of the ignorance of the monks. Thus, it is incorrect to say "Erasmus did not disapprove of Roman Catholic doctrine." To speak then of the "Roman Catholic Erasmus" and to try to paint him as a loyal Romanist is to speak against the facts and slander Erasmus' name.

Hugh Pope continues regarding Erasmus and Rome: "He seemed to take pleasure in suggesting doubts about almost every article of Catholic teaching . . . Small wonder then that he came to be regarded as the man who paved the way for the Reformation . . ." Hugh Pope, English Versions of the Bible. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952.

The Roman Catholic Diego Lopez Zuniga wrote a 54 page essay against Erasmus entitled Erasmi Roterodami blasphemiae et impietates (The Blasphemies and Impieties of Erasmus of Rotterdam) in 1522. How say ye then, Dickie bird, that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic? Somebody in Rome didn’t think too highly of Erasmus!

The Sorbonne condemned 37 articles extracted from his writings in 1527. His books were burned in Spain and long after his death. 2 b Cont'd

"Such are extracts from the reflections upon the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church which were launched upon the world in the notes of the New Testament by Erasmus, some on the first publication, some added as edition followed edition . . . They were deliberate accusations attached to the sacred text, where the religion which was taught by Christ and the Apostles and the degenerate superstition which had taken its place could be contrasted side by side. Nothing was spared; ritual and ceremony, dogmatic theology . . . bishops, seculars, monks were dragged out to judgment, and hung as on a public gibbet, in the light of the pages of the most sacred of all books, published with the leave and approbation of the Pope himself . . . The clergy's skins were tender from long impunity. They shrieked from pulpit and platform . . ." J. A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894,

Edward Lee, a staunch papist and later Archbishop of York, organized a league of Englishmen to oppose Erasmus. Erasmus literally had the firebrands of hell and Rome hurled at him. They absolutely hated him because he had dared tamper with the Vulgate.Like most other Reformers, Erasmus desired to reform the Church from within. He did not desire to leave the Church. In this, his desire was similar to Luther. Erasmus never did officially leave the Church, desiring to reform it from within, but it cannot be denied that he was not a Romanist at heart.

Staunch Catholics were given to refer to Erasmus as a Lutheran at heart. They considered him and his works subversive. While Erasmus was not a Lutheran, there can be no serious or honest doubt that he was in sympathy with the main points of the Lutheran criticism of the Church. Melanchthon, Luther's right hand man, was quoted once as saying, "Erasmus nobiscum est," or "Erasmus is with us."

During his theological studies at the University of Paris, “Unruly students were flogged till the blood came.” Both John Calvin and Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, were trained there, under the same merciless professor, Mr. Standock. Erasmus despised it; Calvin and Loyola did not see so clearly and integrated this sadistic Catholic thinking into their own theology. (This is part of the reason Erasmus could not join Calvin, who was not opposed to burning people at the stake.) “Upon his teachers in this discipline Erasmus emptied the vials of scorn,” said Bainton. Erasmus finally left the University of Paris, concluding, “Heresy does not arise among the laity who have the scriptures in the vernacular, but among the doctors” Ronald Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Erasmus did dedicate his first edition Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X, but as a patron of learning and not on a theological basis. Leo also had done numerous favors for Erasmus, such as freeing him from his monastic vows and removing the disabilities of his bastardy. This Erasmus never forgot.

IN THIS DAY, it would have been nearly hopeless to think that a Bible or a Greek text could be accepted without the approval of the pope. Another reason why Erasmus dedicated his text to the pope was so that it would be accepted.

Why did Erasmus reject the Vulgate?

That Erasmus rejected the Vulgate is a historical fact. There are several reasons why he rejected it. He detected the 4th century corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts on which the Vulgate was based, including the Vaticanus. He also opposed the obvious Roman bias in the translation of various passages.

To oppose the Vulgate was a very un-Romanist thing to do in this day. "To question the fidelity of the Vulgate was a crime of the greatest magnitude in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church." A good Catholic of the Reformation era would not have dared to question or tinker with the Vulgate, but Erasmus, the "bad Catholic" did and was condemned for it.

Despite his many criticisms and his objections to the conduct of the Catholic Church of his time Erasamus lived and died a Roman Catholic - as did Thomas More who had similar misgivings. He never left the Church because he accepted the biblical foundation of Apostolic succession.

Protestant reformers and conservative Catholics at the time would of course adopt positions about his activities and treatises. However, he was never declared a heretic or excommunicated and many of his criticisms informed the later reforms.

Show me anything Erasamus wrote disputing Matthew 16 and associated biblical texts regarding the foundation of the Church and the authority passed to Peter and the Apostles.

Confession time, dear Ernsty. Had I lived at the time (I thank God I didn't) the behaviour of Rome and the Popes of would have severly tested my faith. Who can dispute that many of the criticisms of Luther and the other protestors were justified? However, constructing a whole new theology and misinterpreting (even adding words)to scripture, and dividing the Church just cannot be defended.

"Despite his many criticisms and his objections to the conduct of the Catholic Church of his time Erasamus lived and died a Roman Catholic - as did Thomas More who had similar misgivings. He never left the Church because he accepted the biblical foundation of Apostolic succession. (He was a weak coward who loved the Lord and believed on Him but like St Peter was on the evening of Christ's Crucifixion trial ran off, scared of what it might cost him!Only you could see his denouncing Rome, Rome's rejection of all he wrote, other than Free Will and call it agreeal)""Hugh Pope, under an official Roman Catholic imprimatur and nihil obstat, says Erasmus was a heretic from Rome. (IMPRIMATUR, no less, know what that means ? and that nihil obstat is the first step in having a book published under Church auspices.

If the author is a member of a religious institute and if the book is on questions of religion or morals, the book must also obtain the imprimi potest ("it can be printed") of the major superior.The final approval is given through the imprimatur ("let it be printed") of the author's bishop or of the bishop of the place of publication.)Dodo stated "and many of his criticisms informed the later reforms. " Erasmus input vs Counter Reformation, it's establishing' only shows that it, Magisterium, was NOT listening as the same vehement atacks he launched remained such as images/worship, relics, pilgrimages and Good Friday observances,the mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting, transubstantiation and abstinence ,invocation of the saints, reverence for relics and prayers to Mary. Erasmus denounced THEM ALL.

Why nobody outside Rome trusts it and that you all have not got a clue to what you all stick with, most blindly! Words have no real meaning to Rome but can be twisted to suit it's Magisterium!"Show me anything Erasamus wrote disputing Matthew 16 and associated biblical texts regarding the foundation of the Church and the authority passed to Peter and the Apostles. "

Luther kept Infant Baptism, does that make him a good catholic? While most who believe in a literal interpretation of scripture oppose the concept of infant baptism, many are unaware that Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers not only embraced it, they also condemned the Anabaptists for rejecting it.

Anabaptists were even condemned as “dippers” because the Anabaptists insisted upon baptizing (baptize means to immerse or even dip) people who professed Christ even if they received infant baptism.

It was noted that 'Calvin, who could smile with complacency over the tortures of those who refused to be governed by his own opinions; and Zuinglius, who, when questioned regarding the fate of certain Anabaptists, replied, “Drown the Dippers”'Protestant “reformers” shows that they reformed themselves away from the teaching of Jesus. They sadly became persecutors also!The Bible itself shows that those who received John’s baptism had to be “re-baptized” (Acts 19:3-5) and that those baptized needed to repent–that is something that infants simply cannot do.

Do recall what the Apostle Peter taught,Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)And the Bible shows:Then those that gladly received his word were baptized (Acts 2:42).

According to More's letters to Margaret Roper, he knew that he was dying of kidney failure anyway. In that light, it's easy to see how he needled Henry into "making a martyr of him." Clearly, he did so in the political and financial interests of his corrupt foreign potentate.

More was a traitor, who could not serve two masters. That's what RCism has consistently demanded: that we should serve its alien, earthly prince; which is one reason why I loathe its attempt at resurgence. And that includes its aggression on His Grace's blog.

Manuscripts of the Bible, which are not ancient but were prior to the Protestant Reformation, come from Catholic copyists (it is not the authorship I am getting at, but the charge that they did not read it, which is plainly absurd, when you consider that every new copy had to written out by hand).

Whatever Erasmus' other views, you must face the fact that he disagreed sharply with Luther on justification. If the Bible were so crystal clear, as Protestantism requires us to think, don't you think the greatest scholar of the day would have worked out what Paul meant, and known that what it meant was what Luther said?

Luther (AND ST PAUL): We are not saved by works

No one says we are saved by works. But look closely at St Paul and you will see it is not works per se that he is addressing, but "works of the law", that he is talking about. Luther mistakenly projected his own question back on to Paul. But his question arose from the rather specific context of his own crisis in a time of nominalism. Liberate the text from the Medieval constraints Luther placed on it, and all sorts of passages suddenly make sense, and no longer contradict Paul's central message.

Let me clarify my position. I am not wanting to get at you for what you believe. What I find annoying is the constant snide Protestant remarks to the effect that we Catholics don't read the Bible, don't know what it says, have deliberately misrepresented it, etc.

I want to point out that this is totally unfair. We think your reading of the Bible is false. We think the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture is also false and that it is ruled out by the Bible itself, and by the fact that when we read the Bible it is (as the Bible says) sometimes hard to understand. We think it is ruled out by the way in which Protestants disagree with each other, over fundamental matters, and ruled out by the fact that the great Erasmus - whom you admire - supported much more the Catholic interpretation of scripture rather than Luther's.

By all means defend your interpretation, but stop speaking of us as if we don't read the Bible and can't defend our position from the Bible.

""Show me anything Erasamus wrote disputing Matthew 16 and associated biblical texts regarding the foundation of the Church and the authority passed to Peter and the Apostles. "

Well?"

You lay before Ernst an argument and Ernst offers a counter as showing neither are definitive as both are false, by logic and reason.

Erasmus believed one or two things but denounced Roman Dogma that undermined even that which he supposedly supported, such as 'images/worship, relics, pilgrimages and Good Friday observances,the mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting, transubstantiation and abstinence ,invocation of the saints, reverence for relics and prayers to Mary.' All key dogmas of Roman, foundational in some cases, not mere trifles!

As Luther retained Key Dogma from Rome as Calvin did, 'Infant baptism, Replacement of Israel and escatologic (ammileniumism) theology to mention them', does the two or three things they clung to make them still Roman Catholic. Foolish application of reason, bird!Whereas they disagreed completely with Rome in every other way?

Do you understand this logic of rationality (the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately) and reason (rationality is the exercise of reason), regarding the two or three people in question?

Albert,The whole point of having the Bible is to have the Word of God and to use the Bible to discern error. You may(or may not)have noticed that whole chunks of Catholic practices do not appear in the Bible ,in fact many Catholic practices are expressively forbidden!.

So have you ripped pages out of your Bible and thrown them away?.And perhaps added a few pages to include Catholic practices? IF as you say you have read your Bible then you are without excuse for continuing in error.

You proclaim it is 'unfair' of Christians to criticise Roman Catholics and their religion ( a horrendous mixture of Christianity and paganism concocted by Constantine,) but it is the DUTY of every Christian to make a determined stand for the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

My point, as you well know, is that despite his disagreements, he remained a Roman Catholic.

Now, you'll have to evidence the following assertions. You claim Erasmus denounced the following:

"images/worship, relics, pilgrimages and Good Friday observances,the mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting, transubstantiation and abstinence ,invocation of the saints, reverence for relics and prayers to Mary.

Quite a mixed bag. Not all are dogma, of course, so lets focus on the more critical. Where did Erasmus denounce:

Dodo demanded something that he never provides himself (evidence) even though Ernst had! Varifocal lenses are currently available free at specsavers.

"My point, as you well know, is that despite his disagreements, he remained a Roman Catholic." He did not, he merely remained silent in choosing sides as noted continually by both sides, RC and Protestants.However, He choose to die amongst protestant friends in Basel and not in the arms of Rome!

"Now, you'll have to evidence the following assertions. You claim Erasmus denounced the following:"

I have pointed out evidence that you reject out of hand from a Catholic author (Hugh Pope...Irony? formally authorised by the Papal office (It's called IMPRIMATUR) to state observations regarding Erasmus' place in the English vernacular translations, Erasmus accused as showing (from resources public and private, held by the vatican and for which Ernst cannot get access to!) heretical disregard towards the Vulgate and writing his Greek Testament and letters that criticised Rome, directly in the former and by satire in the latter, thereby paving the way for reformation, especially his use of comments included in his Greek translation of the New Testament. If you have one do read it and his comments, then return and apologise to Ernst. It's called 'direct from the horses mouth' or must Ernst do your studying and research for you also?) and other RC sources but they are not authorative enough, are they. Look and read again the above comments?

Ernst is not under any obligation whatsoever to meet your demands for something further, for you to not answer and lets his weightable evidence stand as stated. "So let it be written... So let it be done (Trumpet Fanfare)" You are like a verbal drunk, that asks for just one more drink for the road, that you know will never be enough to see him off ON that road. Ernst has already called last orders, my fowl and is now telling you he is calling time!Others can read all posted and choose a position..but goood try, bird!

What a strange bird you are, D.affy ("I'm so crazy I don't know this isn't possible") D.odo D.uck! (You know—dun-dun-dunnn-da-dun-da-da-dun-dunnnn-dadada-dun-dunnnnn-dun!) or as Foghorn Leghorn used to say: "That boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball."

Dodo is told by Ernst his theological position continually but he has feathers and skin that even E45 moisturing cream cannot penetrate

"So now you attack the man widely regarded as the father of the reformation!(??) The man who some hold mentored and advised Luther but, and here's the key, suggested he remain in the church."Ernst has mentioned 3 people, so Ernst removes Luther as you refer to him (and advised Luther)however although Luther and Calvin were well known, they never met or spoke a word to each other: Neither was there a regular correspondence between them. Calvin therefore was not exactlya mentor or advisor was he, these terms relate or state an intimate relationship? They did not have one!you say ""So now you attack the man widely regarded as the father of the reformation!" This was Luther but if so how can "The man who some hold mentored and advised Luther " be him/himself.

If you mean Ernst has attacked Erasmus, WHERE!

You really need to trust Ernst on this, Ernst has a keen mind and astute wisdom regarding logic, demonstration of rationality (the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately) and reason (rationality is the exercise of reason) in action and the application of holding all these in balance.

Ernst is reformed, then further reformed, continually checking, as the bereans did, that he examine all things against scripture, to see if it is so.

"As it is said, Erasmus planted the seeds of the reformation, Luther watered them and the devil tended the crop."

"As it is said" This is a roman catholic response obviously. Ernst disagrees as Erasmus merely ploughed the hardened soil with his greek text, made impenetrable after being laid by centuries of Rome's hiding of the biblical truth contained in God's Word.

"If Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Erasmus went on a night out together they wouldn't be able to agree what to do, even if their lives depended on it!" Ernst could say the same of any 4 popes lad, excommunicating each other and swapping bulls of condemnation even whilst sitting at the Lord's Table!. The Lord's Table is a time for reflective worship, a time for examination,it is time of sharing together with one another and most importantly, who and what Jesus Christ really means to us in all the fullness of His life and work on our behalf.

Why Ernst follows no earthly man or their teachings BUT CHRIST! Ernst is like Erasmus, in pacifist belief regarding mans religious beliefs and he requires no man's death for wrongfully held beliefs. Why Ernst hates calvin as much as any pope for doing likewise by burning people at the stake or hanging them. The blood was always on the hands of civil authority whereas the life judged and demanded ended was by religious decree. If you do likewise, how are you better?Ernst believes only Christ can know the hearts of men so the judgement for such should be his and not ours, to end a mans life for beliefs. Believe what you will but Christ will say 'come here' to some or 'join satan and his in the lake of fire' to others.

Are you starting to Understand Ernst?

Ernst 'Follower of no popes, whether Catholic or Protestant' Blofeld

Off to bed now lad, Ernst is too old for these late nights chatting with you, enjoyable though it is.

The whole point of having the Bible is to have the Word of God and to use the Bible to discern error.

Yes, for the Church, it does not work that way for the individual.

You may(or may not)have noticed that whole chunks of Catholic practices do not appear in the Bible ,in fact many Catholic practices are expressively forbidden!

What you think the Bible teaches/prohibits etc. is uninteresting, until such time as you show, from the Bible, that you are the arbitrator of its meaning, that your methods of exegesis are valid and that only those methods are valid.

In the meantime, I am just going to say that the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism are not in the Bible - not even, I think on your terms!

Regarding Catholic teachings you think are not there, if you took scripture seriously as being the instrument by which God discloses himself to us, the very idea that you would be able, exhaustively to discern the fullness of its meaning, would be as abhorrent to you as it is to me.

So have you ripped pages out of your Bible and thrown them away

What did Luther say he would do with the Epistle of Straw? What argument did Calvin have for including the Song of Songs?

You proclaim it is 'unfair' of Christians to criticise Roman Catholics and their religion

I most certainly did not say that. I said:

By all means defend your interpretation, but stop speaking of us as if we don't read the Bible and can't defend our position from the Bible

The fact that you can't find certain doctrines in the Bible, tell us only that you can't find them - it does not say that they aren't there.

Len, I asked you toshow, from the Bible, that you are the arbitrator of its meaning, that your methods of exegesis are valid and that only those methods are valid

You haven’t even attempted that, and yet you are somehow expecting me to prove a load of doctrines to you. Now, it cannot be that you expect a doctrine to be entirely explicit (and if you do, you must find explicit reasons from the Bible for such a view), for even the Bible’s exegesis of itself goes beyond that. Consider how on the road to Emmaus Jesus said:

"O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Now if those teachings were obvious, wouldn’t everyone have already known them?

Again, in Galatians we read:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. [23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. [24] Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

That interpretation can hardly have been obvious.

So at the moment, I am unclear of the methods you allow: biblical methods or some much narrower method of exegesis. So how am I supposed to prove anything to you? And who set you up as a the judge?

But let me take one example from your list. “Mother of God”. You say this is the beginning of the exaltation of Mary and you link it with Ephesus in 431. But the historical link you gave, gives the game away, for the Council of Ephesus was not about Mary, but about Jesus. It was about saying Jesus is God, and that therefore Mary is Mother of God. If Mary is not Mother of God then Jesus is not God. Now this doctrine is hardly controversial as it was held by Luther and Calvin. They both thought it was biblical. So you can hardly dismiss it as unbiblical without simultaneously attacking you own doctrine of the perspicacity of scripture.

Or take this one: Prayers for the dead and you give the date AD 300. What difference does the date make? Unless you show that the Bible teaches that it and only it is an exhaustive basis for everything, there is no reason to trace every last thing back there.

After all, what date is the use of the word “Bible” or “Trinity”? Now of course, I do think there is an explicit biblical basis for praying for the dead in 2 Macc. You will deny that this book is scripture, but that raises the further question of how you know which books are canonical and which are not. Yet we know that even the NT canon was unsettled at the time that we know praying for the dead was going on. So receiving as scripture some of the books you accept came later than praying for the dead. If commencing in 300 counts against prayer for the dead, so it also counts against many books you regard as scripture. So I am left wondering what purpose your list of dates has. Could I not provide a similar list of dates of (say) modern Evangelical hymns? And would that, by its very fact show them to be false?

I see you feel compelled (again)to step in and cover for your less able pal len.

I do look forward to the continuation of this debate and hope Albert is in a position to continue. I don't often share your views but have grown to respect you integrity and commitment to the truth as you have come to understand it. As for me, I'm not so scholarly or well read in these historical matters or as skilled on penetrating the finer points of interpretation.

you haven`t answered any of my points and perhaps while you are at it you could explain why Catholics changed the second commandment.

Do you really think I don't have an answer to that? Surely the issue here is whether it would be a good answer? So there's no point in answering it until we know what constitutes a good answer. And that is why I asked you (I ask it now for the third time) to:

show, from the Bible, that you are the arbitrator of its meaning, that your methods of exegesis are valid and that only those methods are valid

Now I have the highest of authorities to support my not answering your question if you will not answer mine.

Perhaps you can help me get a sense of what you think valid exegesis looks like, by answering these questions:

1. Do you ever take photographs?2. Do you ever use the internet?3. Do you worship on a Saturday or a Sunday?

Because at the moment it looks like you asked me to defend so many things that it would be impossible for me to answer satisfactorily simply for want of time. So when I failed in the task you set, you would think yourself justified in claiming Catholicism is unscriptural.

In contrast, I have asked you very few questions - just one really - and you haven't even managed to answer even that. Under the circumstances, if you think you can claim I am unbiblical for not answering every single one of your questions, then a fortiori I can make the same claim of you if you can't even answer mine.

And if you cannot answer that question, then obviously, I cannot answer any of your questions, for to do so, would be to imply I have an answer to my question.

Albert,The reason you haven`t answered is because Catholic dogmas and traditions(as you well know) cannot be found in Scripture.In fact scripture condemns many Catholic practices and if you have as great a command of Scripture as you allude to you will know this.Which makes you position even more puzzling.

I can tell you the origins of Catholic practices and doctrines...they are straight out of Babylon..perhaps this is why you are so hesitant about naming them?.Who interprets scripture seems to be your question?I think I have answered this on numerous occasions, my answer doesn`t seem to satisfy Catholics because it obviously conflicts with their teaching; As Pope Leo XIII states,

"[Holy Mother Church] is to judge...the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore,.. it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers." So Catholics are dissuaded from reading their Bibles unless accompanied by an'Catholic adviser'.

(continued) So,Can a person read the Bible and understand Scripture unaided by a Catholic Priest?.Is the Bible alone sufficient that the average person can understand Scripture without having to rely upon a church for the "authoritative teaching" well it is evident that Jesus taught openly and with clarity, and expected His followers to each understand His meaning. Recall that following His arrest, Jesus was questioned by the High Priest about His disciples and His teaching. Jesus responded:

I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said (John 18:20-21,).According to Jesus, those who heard Him would be able to clearly enunciate what He had openly communicated.

There were no confusing or obscure meanings in His words that required an "authoritative interpretation" by a church.In keeping with this, the apostle Paul instructed young Timothy: "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15).

This verse points to the complete sufficiency of Scripture in the life of a believer.

Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.

A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15)

You really don't understand the points being made, do you? Or is it that you have no answer?

In summary you are saying that you have the final authority to interpret scripture according to your own understanding. The caveat is that you are inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. And so is ever other person who is a 'true' christian.

How come then that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox (to name a few) disagreed about key theological points? One Holy Spirit doesn't give inconsistent interpretations! So which of them wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Earlier Albert made an excellent point suggesting that Christ's life, death and His words were not understood by His followers:

On road to Emmaus Jesus said:

"O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Now if those teachings were obvious, wouldn’t everyone have already known them?

Len, Albert has given you two instances from the Bible – one where Jesus had to interpret on the road to Emmaus and another about the two covenants mentioned by St Paul. He made the very point that the meaning could hardly have been obvious. The clear meaning from these passages is that people need direction in understanding at least some parts of scripture. Your response is to offer no answer and repeat more accusations which are not justified and not convincing. For all your claims about having the spirit it is clear from your lack of charity that you don’t.

The Spirit of Christ is the interpreter of Scripture, you have said it yourself!.

Catholic theology is constantly changing yet "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8 also; "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17I realise you Catholics cannot accept the authority of Scripture because it reveals the corruptions in Catholicism and that is why you contest the Word of God.

The Spirit of Christ is the interpreter of Scripture, you have said it yourself!.

Catholic theology is constantly changing yet "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8 also; "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17I realise you Catholics cannot accept the authority of Scripture because it reveals the corruptions in Catholicism and that is why you contest the Word of God.

(continued) The whole history of the 'organised Church' is one of compromise.Instead of Christianising the Pagans the 'organised Church 'paganised' Christianity.This process started with Constantine and has continued to this day.Constantine wishing to unite his crumbling empire and not wishing to offend those who practised pagan rites and rituals assimilated these pagan practises into'Christianity'.These pagan practices (expressly forbidden in the Bible) are called 'Catholic traditions' and this is why no Catholic is prepared to discuss them and' a veil of mystery 'is drawn over their origins. This is also why Catholics are forbidden from reading scripture(unaided) because they might stumble across the truth and start raising questions.

Constantine was a well known worshipper of Mithras(very popular with the Roman military) and its origins are evident in Catholicism.

Your quote from John hardly supports your position. We know that the trial of Jesus concerned what Jesus had actually said. To infer from that that he always spoke with clarity is quite false:

From Mark 4:

And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables.

Why if it was all so clear did they need to ask him? Jesus responds by pointing out that his teaching is not always clear:

And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; [12] so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."

And again,

He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

So your suggestion that Jesus taught openly and with clarity, is not in fact scriptural, but rather, contradicted by scripture.

The reason you haven`t answered is because Catholic dogmas and traditions(as you well know) cannot be found in Scripture.

Obviously, I am going to be able to come up with biblical reasons for my faith. The question is whether you will regard them as sufficient to enable me to claim that such doctrines are biblical. Therefore, there is little point in discussing the doctrines themselves. We need to hear about how you judge a doctrine to be biblical. Then we will need to do three things (I have given up waiting for an answer as to why you are the supreme authority on the matter):

1. Check to see if there is a biblical basis for your claim.2. Check to see that there is nothing in the Bible that would contradict your claim.3. Check that your doctrines measure up to your standard.

For example, you quote from 2 Timothy 3.15, and then claim (rather lamely):

This verse points to the complete sufficiency of Scripture in the life of a believer.

"Points to"! If all scripture needs to do is merely point to a doctrine, then I wonder why we are having this conversation!

In any case, the passage plainly doesn't point to the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture. For the scripture in question (at the time of writing) is the OT. Clearly, the OT does not sufficiently reveal Jesus - because if it did, Jesus would hardly have needed to say:

"O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Neither, when asked if he understood what he was reading would the Ethiopian Eunoch have replied:

"How can I, unless some one guides me?"

Indeed, if the OT was sufficient, what need for the NT?

So the passage you cite, not only does not say what you want it to say, it does not even point to what you want it to say, but rather contradicts what you want it to say.

Why do you expect a higher standard of evidence from the Catholic, that you do not demand for yourself?

I realise you Catholics cannot accept the authority of Scripture because it reveals the corruptions in Catholicism and that is why you contest the Word of God.

Is it not obvious that it is your position that cannot be defended from scripture? This is evident from (among so many other things) that it is so easy to contradict what you say with direct quotations from the Bible.

Albert your refusal to speak about Catholic doctrines says it all to me.!.I have been open and honest with you and in return you have been deliberately evasive.

Regarding the interpretation of Scripture(still)The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14(your inference is that Catholics are carnal and unable to understand Scripture)In the final analysis, accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years. However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).

(I will not wait for your answer on the origins of Catholic doctrines and practices because(quite obviously ) you cannot give them without 'giving the game away'.

The Bible makes it clear that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. However, there can be many applications. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides us not only to the right interpretation of a passage but also to the precise application of Scripture to our daily lives. If our lives are in harmony with the Lord, we can expect the Holy Spirit to illuminate certain passages of Scripture for our personal application

Albert here is a short' take' from an article by John MacArthur(who says it far more eloquently than I can)

(this could have been written to you )

'What it really comes down to is you deny what the Scripture says, you twist and pervert what the Scripture says, and you invent another religion based upon tradition. The Catholic Church says tradition is equal to Scripture and the Catholic Church determines what is tradition. She also says, does the Church, that the Popes determine the true meaning of Scripture and they alone know the true meaning of Scripture. And the meaning that they determine to be the true meaning is infallible. So you have a man who claims to be the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ. He arrogates to himself an authority that belongs to God alone. He feels free to interpret Scripture any way he wants to and it is infallible. And in the process, of course, abandons the plain sense of Scripture that teaches Christ alone is the way to salvation by faith alone.'

I have not refused to defend Catholic doctrines on scriptural on grounds at all - on the contrary. What I have done is refuse to submit them to an unscriptural measure which is rooted in "enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension [and] party spirit." Not that I am accusing you of such: I have simply asked you to show that you are not rooted in such things. And we both know that I have the highest scriptural authority for not speaking until such matters are clarified.

After all, you keep quoting scripture at me, and I keep quoting it back at you, showing that your interpretation is contradicted by scripture.

Regarding the interpretation of Scripture(still)The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”

Here we are agreed. But it's your application of this that gives the game away. It seems that your understanding of this is that you have some gift of the Spirit that enables you, by yourself, to interpret exhaustively, the meaning of scripture. I cannot see that you have defended that position.

You really think that, by yourself you would have come up with Paul's interpretation of Jerusalem? Or that you can plumb the depths of Jesus' interpretation of the OT on the road to Emmaus?

There are some basic errors in your interpretation. Firstly, you fail to see that the Corinthians to whom Paul is writing, though unspiritual, are nevertheless, part of the Church. They are trapped in the same "unspiritual" mindset of division and disunity, and yet Paul says they are still "God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in them."

In other words, according to the Bible, the Church is a much bigger body than you allow it to be. And thus you show yourself, by the very standards of the passage you cite, to be unspiritual - not unChristian, but unspiritual and divisive, the very thing Paul is speaking against!

Secondly, you fail to see that they thought, as you do, they were full of the gifts of the Spirit:

Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings!...We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.

So what is Paul's response to all this? It is to invoke his apostolic authority to place the genuine spiritual gifts within their proper context, that there be no division:

God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? [30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

You see the bits I have particularly highlighted? Do you see how your own position conflicts with that of scripture itself (this is what you wrote):

Who [the Holy Spirit] guides us ...to the right interpretation of a passage So all do interpret then, and scripture is wrong? But scripture is not wrong, so what is to be done with those who evidently do not have the gift of prophecy or interpretation, and how do we know who is who?

Apostolic authority commands even the prophets:

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [30] If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.

And we can tell when a prophet really is a prophet, because they will agree with the apostolic authority:

If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

For Paul, there is no way of short-cutting the living apostolic authority Christ gave to his Church:

If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

So simply sticking with the one book you cited, there is no difficulty in showing that your position is an over-simplification to the point of misrepresentation and misunderstanding - and a divisive one at that.

I started to read the sermon you linked. I gave up at this point:

[Catholicism] conducts a horrific exaltation of Mary above Christ and even God

I'm sorry, but if your teachers, (looking at us joining in God's own magnification of Mary and calling her blessed), think we are are, (by comparison to the honour they give to God and Jesus), worshipping her, this can only be because they do not properly worship Jesus or God. Or is it lack of charity that leads them to say such things? Either way, I think 1 Corinthians is by itself sufficient to refute them.

He [the Pope] arrogates to himself an authority that belongs to God alone

The irony here is that Catholicism claims the teaching authority the Pope received from Jesus, by His own promise and authority is no higher than the authority you claim for yourself.

I see you have posted the same list as before, complete with the dates, which, if they have any application, serve only to raise questions over some part of the canon you yourself receive.

I see you have even added the scripture:

"'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

Well exactly! My whole last post was designed to show that you see the scripture, but do not perceive it. It is not that I cannot defend Catholicism, it is that I will not subject the pearl of such great price to a montanist stampede.

Albert,It has been nice talking to you, but we clearly are on two different paths.

Thank you for being polite.

I will leave you with this thought (and of course the following is only applicable if one is Born again,that is born of the Spirit of God )................... Our Lord Jesus Christ is THE ANOINTED, but Christ in us is THE ANOINTING, as the apostle affirms, "But you have an unction from the Holy One ... the anointing which YOU HAVE RECEIVED OF HIM abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the SAME ANOINTING teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide IN HIM" (I Jn. 2:20,27). There is in the Christ within, or in THE ANOINTING such a generous, copious, abundant, plentiful, profuse, rich, full, and overflowing bestowal of the grace and abilities of God that there is no need for anything that men might add to such an anointing. And that is the great truth that the man-made Church systems do not and cannot understand. The CHRIST IS SUFFICIENT. The ANOINTING IS SUFFICIENT! Nothing else is needed to quicken, support, or guide the true' Church' of Jesus Christ.

God bless you too Len. I have enjoyed our conversation. I spend so much of my time talking philosophy to secularists that it has been nice simply to stick to God's word. But you're right, we probably have reached the conclusion of this. Also, I agree with everything you have said in your last post. That will perplex you, perhaps, but then, as you say, there is a level in which our paths differ.

May it please God, in his wisdom and mercy to bring us both to the same heavenly destination! I will pray for you at Mass in the morning, and ask you please, to pray for me.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)